The Humanist Ten Commitments again

[Politesse]

Humility?

That one's ironic.

The very name of the movement strongly implies that adherents themselves the only people who care about humans...

I like a lot of things about humanism, but (also ironically) most of the things I like about it are qualities and virtues that are pretty much found in every religious tradition, as this list indeed attests to.

 

[southernhybrid]

I'm of the opinion that humanism mainly grew as a secular movement in response to the overwhelming force of religion in most societies. Humanism is primarily anti-religious.

But at the same time it has the same elements of religion:
- we're ethically superior because we believe in [x] (reason / science) instead of [y] (God)
- we abide by a moral code that presumes [x] (reason / science) is what is good and just in the world, and is the closest thing to our savior

Maybe that's an improvement over relying on a deity, but if I were to build a humanist ideology I'd try to distance myself from the notion that science / technology is anything more than an amoral tool.

I don't know, in my experience at this forum and with humanist groups, I get the picture of smug academics looking down on the unwashed masses who just haven't seen the light yet. Sounds familiar.

I suppose there are "humanists" who are smug academics, but I was once a member of a now defunct group called, "Humanists of Georgia." Only one was an academic and you couldn't imagine a more humble man. He hated being referred to as doctor and was extremely down to earth. The rest of us were an assortment of odd balls. Some had college degrees, while some were high school graduates. Nobody was in the least bit arrogant. And, the Humanist label wasn't taken too seriously. It was just about trying to live a decent life without intentionally harming anyone else.

We sometimes had guest speakers who were from academia, but I have no idea if any of them were atheists to humanists. Actually, one of our best speakers was a Christian who was also a professor of history. He loved speaking to our group because we were more open minded than most of his students. We also had a Geology professor who gave us a lecture on global climate change. He was excellent and explained things using charts and actual evidence. The group eventually died out, primarily because we all lived quite far apart from each other. When we ended the group, we took the several thousand dollars that we had and donated to Atlanta Freethought Society, which is still a very active group.

I attended the last meeting of AFS, and the Black Non believers of Atlanta joined with us. There was a young Christian who was in seminary who visited and asked a lot of questions. He apologized for asking questions, but we told him we loved it when people honestly wanted to discuss religion with us. It was a very interesting, friendly meeting. I even barged my way into a photo of the Black Non believers. I told them they needed a token white girl in the photo. They all laughed and had me join them. So, I think you may have the wrong idea about humanists and assorted atheists who have organizations.

I grew up attending a large evangelical church. The arrogance there was overwhelming, and guess what? Some of them were highly educated academic types,. One man had a seat on the New York Stock exchange, another one had an appointment with the UN, several were engineers or scientists, but they all knew they were "saved" and the rest of society was going to hell. It doesn't get more arrogant that that, does it?

 

[Tammuz]

I've never liked the term "Humanism". It seems very arrogant and self-serving to push forth the idea that humans are noble creatures. We often aren't. Humans are often scum, and it is no more human to be nice than it is human to be nasty. I dislike "Humane" for the same reason. It is bigotry at the species level.

Elephants and whales are my favorite animals. Intelligent, largely peaceful animals. Very different from Homo sapiens.

 

[Tammuz]

I'm of the opinion that humanism mainly grew as a secular movement in response to the overwhelming force of religion in most societies. Humanism is primarily anti-religious.

I'm not sure I agree with your other points, but I think this one is correct. When looking at countries in which humanist organizations are strong, it is typically the case that in those countries, there is strong influence of religion that humanist groups are fighting against.

 

[rousseau]

I'm of the opinion that humanism mainly grew as a secular movement in response to the overwhelming force of religion in most societies. Humanism is primarily anti-religious.

But at the same time it has the same elements of religion:
- we're ethically superior because we believe in [x] (reason / science) instead of [y] (God)
- we abide by a moral code that presumes [x] (reason / science) is what is good and just in the world, and is the closest thing to our savior

Maybe that's an improvement over relying on a deity, but if I were to build a humanist ideology I'd try to distance myself from the notion that science / technology is anything more than an amoral tool.

I don't know, in my experience at this forum and with humanist groups, I get the picture of smug academics looking down on the unwashed masses who just haven't seen the light yet. Sounds familiar.

I suppose there are "humanists" who are smug academics, but I was once a member of a now defunct group called, "Humanists of Georgia." Only one was an academic and you couldn't imagine a more humble man. He hated being referred to as doctor and was extremely down to earth. The rest of us were an assortment of odd balls. Some had college degrees, while some were high school graduates. Nobody was in the least bit arrogant. And, the Humanist label wasn't taken too seriously. It was just about trying to live a decent life without intentionally harming anyone else.

We sometimes had guest speakers who were from academia, but I have no idea if any of them were atheists to humanists. Actually, one of our best speakers was a Christian who was also a professor of history. He loved speaking to our group because we were more open minded than most of his students. We also had a Geology professor who gave us a lecture on global climate change. He was excellent and explained things using charts and actual evidence. The group eventually died out, primarily because we all lived quite far apart from each other. When we ended the group, we took the several thousand dollars that we had and donated to Atlanta Freethought Society, which is still a very active group.

I attended the last meeting of AFS, and the Black Non believers of Atlanta joined with us. There was a young Christian who was in seminary who visited and asked a lot of questions. He apologized for asking questions, but we told him we loved it when people honestly wanted to discuss religion with us. It was a very interesting, friendly meeting. I even barged my way into a photo of the Black Non believers. I told them they needed a token white girl in the photo. They all laughed and had me join them. So, I think you may have the wrong idea about humanists and assorted atheists who have organizations.

I grew up attending a large evangelical church. The arrogance there was overwhelming, and guess what? Some of them were highly educated academic types,. One man had a seat on the New York Stock exchange, another one had an appointment with the UN, several were engineers or scientists, but they all knew they were "saved" and the rest of society was going to hell. It doesn't get more arrogant that that, does it?

Maybe I do need to give them more of a chance. The only impression I got of my local humanist group was via their Facebook page which was quite militant, and some of the topics they discussed at their meetings which were also quite militant. That was the main turn-off for me - the crusade against unreason. But then, I guess you need some tangible reason to actually get together beyond 'we're not religious' so let's hang out. People do things.

Personally, I find myself more attracted to people who are politically inactive and who just want to live an average, unexceptional life. They have no pretensions about 'changing the world', they just get on with it. Somehow I find these people more intuitively rational than those who are engaged in politics. They realize that they really can't accomplish much so they just don't try, and end up avoiding the grandiosity of activism.

But then, my local humanist group may be rife with people like that. Maybe I should give it a shot.

 

[steve_bank]

Humility?

That one's ironic.

The very name of the movement strongly implies that adherents themselves the only people who care about humans...

I like a lot of things about humanism, but (also ironically) most of the things I like about it are qualities and virtues that are pretty much found in every religious tradition, as this list indeed attests to.

You have it bass ackwards. It is the Christians who manifest a sense of superiority over non believers.

 

[Politesse]

Humility?

That one's ironic.

The very name of the movement strongly implies that adherents themselves the only people who care about humans...

I like a lot of things about humanism, but (also ironically) most of the things I like about it are qualities and virtues that are pretty much found in every religious tradition, as this list indeed attests to.

You have it bass ackwards. It is the Christians who manifest a sense of superiority over non believers.

Oh, no one has a monopoly on arrogance.

 

[fromderinside]

Whaaat? Just like a Chreeeestion sticking to dogma over principle. Praaze da lard - I'm seeing a three hundred pound barbeque man pumping fist right after his son, and side off the ham, bashes a 135 lb kid in Friday Night Lights - chillen 'cause Gawd waurks in missterius waze.

 

[steve_bank]

Humility?

That one's ironic.

The very name of the movement strongly implies that adherents themselves the only people who care about humans...

I like a lot of things about humanism, but (also ironically) most of the things I like about it are qualities and virtues that are pretty much found in every religious tradition, as this list indeed attests to.

You have it bass ackwards. It is the Christians who manifest a sense of superiority over non believers.

Oh, no one has a monopoly on arrogance.

Christian arrogance is based on the belief of being an agent of a god empowered to dispense morality.

 

[southernhybrid]

I'm of the opinion that humanism mainly grew as a secular movement in response to the overwhelming force of religion in most societies. Humanism is primarily anti-religious.

But at the same time it has the same elements of religion:
- we're ethically superior because we believe in [x] (reason / science) instead of [y] (God)
- we abide by a moral code that presumes [x] (reason / science) is what is good and just in the world, and is the closest thing to our savior

Maybe that's an improvement over relying on a deity, but if I were to build a humanist ideology I'd try to distance myself from the notion that science / technology is anything more than an amoral tool.

I don't know, in my experience at this forum and with humanist groups, I get the picture of smug academics looking down on the unwashed masses who just haven't seen the light yet. Sounds familiar.

I suppose there are "humanists" who are smug academics, but I was once a member of a now defunct group called, "Humanists of Georgia." Only one was an academic and you couldn't imagine a more humble man. He hated being referred to as doctor and was extremely down to earth. The rest of us were an assortment of odd balls. Some had college degrees, while some were high school graduates. Nobody was in the least bit arrogant. And, the Humanist label wasn't taken too seriously. It was just about trying to live a decent life without intentionally harming anyone else.

We sometimes had guest speakers who were from academia, but I have no idea if any of them were atheists to humanists. Actually, one of our best speakers was a Christian who was also a professor of history. He loved speaking to our group because we were more open minded than most of his students. We also had a Geology professor who gave us a lecture on global climate change. He was excellent and explained things using charts and actual evidence. The group eventually died out, primarily because we all lived quite far apart from each other. When we ended the group, we took the several thousand dollars that we had and donated to Atlanta Freethought Society, which is still a very active group.

I attended the last meeting of AFS, and the Black Non believers of Atlanta joined with us. There was a young Christian who was in seminary who visited and asked a lot of questions. He apologized for asking questions, but we told him we loved it when people honestly wanted to discuss religion with us. It was a very interesting, friendly meeting. I even barged my way into a photo of the Black Non believers. I told them they needed a token white girl in the photo. They all laughed and had me join them. So, I think you may have the wrong idea about humanists and assorted atheists who have organizations.

I grew up attending a large evangelical church. The arrogance there was overwhelming, and guess what? Some of them were highly educated academic types,. One man had a seat on the New York Stock exchange, another one had an appointment with the UN, several were engineers or scientists, but they all knew they were "saved" and the rest of society was going to hell. It doesn't get more arrogant that that, does it?

Maybe I do need to give them more of a chance. The only impression I got of my local humanist group was via their Facebook page which was quite militant, and some of the topics they discussed at their meetings which were also quite militant. That was the main turn-off for me - the crusade against unreason. But then, I guess you need some tangible reason to actually get together beyond 'we're not religious' so let's hang out. People do things.

Personally, I find myself more attracted to people who are politically inactive and who just want to live an average, unexceptional life. They have no pretensions about 'changing the world', they just get on with it. Somehow I find these people more intuitively rational than those who are engaged in politics. They realize that they really can't accomplish much so they just don't try, and end up avoiding the grandiosity of activism.

But then, my local humanist group may be rife with people like that. Maybe I should give it a shot.

It's certainly possible that you wouldn't like your local group. There's a libertarian atheist group in Atlanta that I'm sure I wouldn't feel comfortable hanging out with, so atheists come in a variety of different types, just like any other group. Our little local group isn't very active, but we are an extremely odd group of people. But, atheist or not, I've always enjoyed being around people who I have little in common with. It's boring always being around people who are a lot like yourself, imo. Some of my favorite people are the black Christian women who I spend time with at the local senior center. We have a lot in common when it comes to politics, but our backgrounds and experiences are extremely different from each other.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I've never liked the term "Humanism". It seems very arrogant and self-serving to push forth the idea that humans are noble creatures. We often aren't. Humans are often scum, and it is no more human to be nice than it is human to be nasty. I dislike "Humane" for the same reason. It is bigotry at the species level.

Elephants and whales are my favorite animals. Intelligent, largely peaceful animals. Very different from Homo sapiens.

Yes. Dogs are better than humans too. How am I supposed to call myself a "humanist" and feel like that's a good thing while chatting with a dog, whale, or elephant?

 

[arkirk]

We all know when we are over the line in terms of passionate expression of our rights over those of others. That however is the basis of our demise. When we get too passionate about anything we seem almost to a man (and to a woman) to forget that our civilization is merely a thin veneer over very powerful pleasure and displeasure machines which have been frustrated more often than satisfied. We know when our anger and frustration may drive us into terrible actions but it appears we do not know it with enough self governing authority. Civilization may be just a veneer, but it is an all important one. We possess the capacity to perpetrate terrible acts that are destructive to huge swaths of our environment and community and it is only the strength of our veneer of civilization that holds these powers in check. I feel our government with all its bitter competitive fury has fallen into the hands of those who do not respect the importance of being civil in a human sense. What I am driving at here is the absolute necessity for the veneer to remain intact in the full light of whatever turns out to be the truth. Civilization is Applied Humanism. Any of these codes in this thread are okay as long as we choose to be civilized and to maintain kindness and love not only for our fellow man but the very ground on which we stand.

 

[arkirk]

I've never liked the term "Humanism". It seems very arrogant and self-serving to push forth the idea that humans are noble creatures. We often aren't. Humans are often scum, and it is no more human to be nice than it is human to be nasty. I dislike "Humane" for the same reason. It is bigotry at the species level.

Elephants and whales are my favorite animals. Intelligent, largely peaceful animals. Very different from Homo sapiens.

Yes. Dogs are better than humans too. How am I supposed to call myself a "humanist" and feel like that's a good thing while chatting with a dog, whale, or elephant?

Sorry, Jolly Penguin, it is just that a dog can be your best friend without saying a word.